Introduction:

In the legal battle between R.S. Madireddy & Ors and Union of India & Ors, concerning writ petitions filed by employees against Air India Limited (AIL), the Supreme Court’s recent decision has stirred controversy. The petitions, addressing issues of non-promotion and stagnation in pay, were initially deemed maintainable by the Bombay High Court. However, with AIL’s subsequent privatization, the High Court held the petitions non-maintainable, a decision now affirmed by the Supreme Court. The case has sparked debate over the jurisdiction of courts post-privatization, raising fundamental questions about employee rights and legal recourse.

Arguments:

Senior Advocate Sanjay Singhvi, representing the petitioners, argued for the maintainability of the writ petitions based on the principle that jurisdiction is determined by the facts at the time of filing. Conversely, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Air India Limited, cited precedents from various High Courts where similar petitions were dismissed post-privatization. The crux of the debate rested on the interpretation of jurisdiction vis-à-vis the changing status of a state-owned entity.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court, through Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, upheld the High Court’s decision, deeming the writ petitions non-maintainable post-privatization. The court cited the lack of jurisdiction to issue writs against a privatized entity and affirmed the principle that jurisdiction is determined by the prevailing circumstances. With this verdict, the legal battle between the employees and Air India Limited reaches its conclusion, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.